I rarely quote full articles but this one is so filled with info that it's worth it.

Quote:

Its cost $600 billion of your money. And it was supposed to rescue the economy. But has Ben Bernankes huge financial stimulus package, known as Quantitative Easing 2, actually worked as planned?

QE2 is being wound down in the next few weeks. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has said it has left the economy moving in the right direction.

But an analysis of the real numbers tells a very different story.

Turns out the program has created maybe 700,000 full-time jobs at a cost of around $850,000 each.

House prices are lower than before QE2 was launched. Economic growth is slower. Inflation is higher.

Yes, its sparked a massive boom on the stock market. Ordinary investors have started piling back into shares again. And last week we saw the latest example of the return of animal spirits on Wall Street, as stock in new dot-com LinkedIn LNKD +2.64% skyrocketed on its debut. How to cash in on LinkedIn .

But even the stock market boom hasnt been what it appears. An analysis shows that most of the rise in the Standard & Poors 500 Index SPX +0.42% under QE2 has simply been a result of the decline in the dollar in which shares are measured.

The truth? QE2 has created a massive new bubble in dollar-based financial assets, from stocks to gold. Meanwhile, it has had zero visible effect on the real economy.

Take jobs. According to the U.S. Labor Department, since last August the number of full-time workers has gone up by just 700,000, from 111.8 million to 112.5 million.

At a cost of $600 billion, thats $850,000 a job.

The pictures even more meager. Over the same period, the number of part-time workers has gone down by 600,000. In other words, weve basically shifted 600,000 or 700,000 workers from part-time jobs to full-time jobs.

The percentage of the population in work is actually lower today 58.4%, compared to 58.5% last August. The percentage of the workforce in actual work, the so-called participation rate, has fallen by half a percentage point.

Some recovery.

April housing starts fell 11%.

Housing is double-dipping. Big time. According to the National Association of Realtors, the average price of an existing (i.e. used) home was $177,300 in August, just before QE2.

Today? Its $163,700 or 8% less.

Economic growth has slowed. It was 2.6% last summer. Its a miserable 1.8% now.

Meanwhile inflation has risen, from 1.2% before QE2 to 3.1% now.

Okay, maybe the economy would have been even worse without QE2. But the data do puncture any claim that these economic policies are working as advertized. Economists are now growing more and more gloomy about the outlook ahead. Retailer Gap on Friday became the latest economic bellwether to warn on weak sales and rising costs.

Meanwhile QE2 has created an entirely artificial bubble in all dollar-based assets.

Look at the stock market. Since Aug. 27, when Bernanke unveiled his plan for QE2 in Jackson Hole, Wyo., the S&P 500 has risen by 26%.

So far, so good, right? But its an illusion. Whats really happened is a decline in the value of the dollars that the shares are measured in.

Measured in hard currencies, the stock market boom has been much less impressive. In Swiss francs, the S&P has risen by just 8.4% since Aug. 27. In currencies like the Swedish krone and Australian dollars its even less. Measured in gold, the S&P 500 is up just 4.5%.

Meanwhile the illusion of a boom is causing all sorts of investors to take crazy risks. Witness LinkedIns IPO. Economists from the so-called Austrian school say this is a reason to go back to a gold standard. It certainly makes you wonder whats next.

It's better because without it a man could want you, your wife, and all you own. If powerful enough he could just come into your house and take those things and there would be no policeman to stop him. No law would protect you and police coverage if it did exist would be worse than it is now because not everybody would pay for it. They'd rather spend the money on something else. So we have taxes to pay for it to make sure that doesn't happen. And even in that kind of society there's corruption because people will be people but at least there's something tp protect you from that just happening. It's better than just the wild west MJ's advocating.

Thank you for answering my question.

Perhaps you need to study up a bit on what anarchy is, as your view of it is obviously influenced by statist propaganda against it.

"Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchÃ*ā, "without ruler") may refer to any of several political states, and has been variously defined by sources. Most often, the term "anarchy" describes the simple absence of publicly recognized government or enforced political authority. When used in this sense, anarchy may or may not imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society. In another sense, anarchy may not refer to a complete lack of authority or political organization, but instead refer to a social state characterized by absolute direct democracy or libertarianism."

So you see, anarchy does not necessarily imply the total absence of law and order, as you think it does.

And you still have yet to show where, exactly, MJ1970 is advocating anarchy in the first place.

"Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchÃ*ā, "without ruler") may refer to any of several political states, and has been variously defined by sources. Most often, the term "anarchy" describes the simple absence of publicly recognized government or enforced political authority. When used in this sense, anarchy may or may not imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society. In another sense, anarchy may not refer to a complete lack of authority or political organization, but instead refer to a social state characterized by absolute direct democracy or libertarianism."

So you see, anarchy does not necessarily imply the total absence of law and order, as you think it does.

And you still have yet to show where, exactly, MJ1970 is advocating anarchy in the first place.

Listen. As I've stated I used to be a Libertarian. I went to meetings here in town and both my parents were into it. So I'm pretty familiar with what they'd change if they were in power. It's pretty obvious that their brand of limited anarchy wouldn't work. If you know people you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know why. That's why even after all this time there isn't one in the Whitehouse. Also sorry about your blindspot.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Listen. As I've stated I used to be a Libertarian. I went to meetings here in town and both my parents were into it. So I'm pretty familiar with what they'd change if they were in power. It's pretty obvious that their brand of limited anarchy wouldn't work. If you know people you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know why. That's why even after all this time there isn't one in the Whitehouse. Also sorry about your blindspot.

Going to meetings or even voting for a Libertarian Party candidate doesn't mean you understand libertarianism or that you are a libertarian. Your posts indicate that your understanding of it is very limited.

Going to meetings or even voting for a Libertarian Party candidate doesn't mean you understand libertarianism or that you are a libertarian. Your posts indicate that your understanding of it is very limited.

I understood plenty. But no matter about your assessment of my time with them ( Jesus! We had a poster of Roger MacBride on the front of our house for flippen sakes! For those of you too young to remember http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_MacBride ) you don't have to go very far to find the pit falls of their viewpoint.

Ps. I still have Roger's poster in my garage.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

And what were the REAL WORLD results, as opposed to their pompous high-brow theoretical hot air, of their so-called "expertise"? No matter to (against?) which country they applied their methods, the result was consistent: Economic collapse, mass unemployment, poverty, strife, and loss of life savings for greater proportion of society, while an élitist, self serving minority, led by criminal insiders, raped, looted and pillaged national coffers and treasuries.

Nobel prizes for economics for those Chicago school looters, aka MAFIA: Orwellian doublespeak. Just like Obama's "Peace Prize" (sic), for instigating more wars, and authorizing $multi-billion state-sponsored terrorism against Pakistani citizens.

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

No matter to (against?) which country they applied their methods, the result was consistent: Economic collapse, mass unemployment, poverty, strife, and loss of life savings for greater proportion of society, while an élitist, self serving minority, led by criminal insiders, raped, looted and pillaged national coffers and treasuries.

Where are you speaking of? Perhaps we could have a concrete discussion and a real analysis of what happened as opposed to what you think happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo

Nobel prizes for economics for those Chicago school looters, aka MAFIA: Orwellian doublespeak. Just like Obama's "Peace Prize" (sic), for instigating more wars, and authorizing $multi-billion state-sponsored terrorism against Pakistani citizens.

No, he asked you to tell him the difference, which you still have not done. You are the one claiming he is advocating anarchy. He stated some facts about it, but he has not advocated for it.

Guys, you missed this jimmac-ism: "White is black." That's what he says when you disagree with him.

Sure. I'll be happy to either defend a previous statement, explain it, or indicate I was wrong. Whichever you like.

Good luck with that, my friend. Though, here's an interesting question: Sammi...what economic school of thought do you support?

Quote:

No, he asked you to tell him the difference, which you still have not done. You are the one claiming he is advocating anarchy. He stated some facts about it, but he has not advocated for it.

Look next time you post and look stupid ( again ) why don't you try reading what you're talking about? I mean you keep trying to claim I have no understanding of what I'm talking about while you seem like the poster child of this.
Here's the quote :

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
There is a difference between " Freedom " and total anarchy. And if that's what you're selling no wonder not many are buying.

And MJ's reply :

Is there? Really? Perhaps your deep study and understanding of society and political philosophy will shed some light on this insight.

First I state there is a difference between the two and if that's what you’re selling ( and he never denies it ) then he comes back with " Really? Is there? " Now this is just vague enough ( as he's the master of this technique ) that he could try to turn this into something else after he saw it was going to cause problems but that's not what it looks like originally. Also before he's stated he likes the concept of anarchy.

PS. Or maybe he should get off of his high horse and quit trying to feign superority like this was his class room and I'm his student ( I wouldn't even like this approach as a student ).

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Look next time you post and look stupid ( again ) why don't you try reading what you're talking about?

Continue the ad homs. See where it gets you.

Quote:

I mean you keep trying to claim I have no understanding of what I'm talking about while you seem like the poster child of this.

I am not claiming that at all. I believe you have me confused with MJ. I'm simply saying his quote does not indicate what you say it does.

Quote:

Here's the quote :

First I state there is a difference between the two and if that's what you’re selling ( and he never denies it ) then he comes back with " Really? Is there? " Now this is just vague enough ( as he's the master of this technique ) that he could try to turn this into something else after he saw it was going to cause problems but that's not what it looks like originally. Also before he's stated he likes the concept of anarchy.

PS. Or maybe he should get off of his high horse and quit trying to feign superority like this was his class room and I'm his student ( I wouldn't even like this approach as a student ).

That quote of his does not even come CLOSE to showing that he is advocating anarchy. Moreover, YOU are the one who is making the claim!

Synopsis:

jimmac: You're talking about anarchy. There is a difference between freedom and anarchy.

MJ: Is there?

jimmac: Yes! Case closed, because I say so.

MJ: OK

jimmac: You want anarchy, you anarchist!

MJ: I never claimed that, I asked you to show me the difference.

jimmac: SDW is a slut.

</end>

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Jimmac, why don't you stop calling people names or telling them what they believe and tell us all how this President ought to be defended with regard to his progress or lack there of for governing via these fairy tales.

I mean perhaps it is because everyone here is a little older but you should recall how you declared we ought not judge Obama too soon when these actions took place and how we "had to do something." I mean that was 2.5 years ago already. By the time of the next election it will have been four years and while that may not feel like a long time after this number of years, the reality is that 2.5-4 years is a massive amount of time.

Also saying "the economy was worse than they thought" means they didn't have the ability to truly understand the problem. How can such ignorance be excused? How can it suddenly be pointed at and declared competence and expertise?

There is no middle ground on the matter. The solution can't be declared to be working but we just didn't realize how bad it was to start because part of the competence to design the solution is having the ability to know how bad the problem is in the first place.

Jimmac, why don't you stop calling people names or telling them what they believe and tell us all how this President ought to be defended with regard to his progress or lack there of for governing via these fairy tales.

I mean perhaps it is because everyone here is a little older but you should recall how you declared we ought not judge Obama too soon when these actions took place and how we "had to do something." I mean that was 2.5 years ago already. By the time of the next election it will have been four years and while that may not feel like a long time after this number of years, the reality is that 2.5-4 years is a massive amount of time.

Also saying "the economy was worse than they thought" means they didn't have the ability to truly understand the problem. How can such ignorance be excused? How can it suddenly be pointed at and declared competence and expertise?

There is no middle ground on the matter. The solution can't be declared to be working but we just didn't realize how bad it was to start because part of the competence to design the solution is having the ability to know how bad the problem is in the first place.

Why don't you stop trying peddle your personal opinions as if they were gospel?

Also why do you refuse to look at where this all started? Oh! That's right. It's in the past so it doesn't count ( it only counts if it's a democrat ).

Also I've stated repeatedly that I'm not pleased with everything Obama's doing but he's still better than the Greedy Ol' Party.

And trumpy lots of people were saying this was a really bad problem from the start ( before Obama ). The worst since the Great Depression ( I don't know how you could compare it to something worse ) and yet those in control weren't listening then.

And you know 8 years of stupid mistakes back in the first decade of this century is pretty long period of time also.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Why don't you stop trying peddle your personal opinions as if they were gospel?

If they were gospel you'd be sending me your 10% tithe Jimmac. This is a messenger attack rather than fact based. You continue the trend of ignoring the message.

Quote:

Also why do you refuse to look at where this all started? Oh! That's right. It's in the past so it doesn't count ( it only counts if it's a democrat ).

I've not ignored where it started. I've not given Republicans a free pass at all about acting like Democrats and I've declared that they need to come around much more like my paleo-conservative views that I've always espoused. There were threads where I trashed Bush for not being very conservative and spending too much. Guys like you were in those thread telling me I was nuts and that he was the most conservative thing imaginable. The Democrats ran against Bush claiming PAYGO in 2006 and ending foreign wars and using the savings to stop deficit spending in 2008. Those are conservative positions and they lied about them.

Quote:

Also I've stated repeatedly that I'm not pleased with everything Obama's doing but he's still better than the Greedy Ol' Party.

His inflation is going to destroy whatever hope of retirement you have.

Quote:

And trumpy lots of people were saying this was a really bad problem from the start ( before Obama ). The worst since the Great Depression ( I don't know how you could compare it to something worse ) and yet those in control weren't listening then.

It was and is a bad problem. Like most western governments the problem is deeper. Thus the many boomer threads on here because it isn't about just political party at all, but about beliefs related to utopia and attempting to make that utopia arrive via manipulation of policy and currency by governments.

And you know 8 years of stupid mistakes back in the first decade of this century is pretty long period of time also.[/QUOTE]

If they were gospel you'd be sending me your 10% tithe Jimmac. This is a messenger attack rather than fact based. You continue the trend of ignoring the message.

I've not ignored where it started. I've not given Republicans a free pass at all about acting like Democrats and I've declared that they need to come around much more like my paleo-conservative views that I've always espoused. There were threads where I trashed Bush for not being very conservative and spending too much. Guys like you were in those thread telling me I was nuts and that he was the most conservative thing imaginable. The Democrats ran against Bush claiming PAYGO in 2006 and ending foreign wars and using the savings to stop deficit spending in 2008. Those are conservative positions and they lied about them.

His inflation is going to destroy whatever hope of retirement you have.

It was and is a bad problem. Like most western governments the problem is deeper. Thus the many boomer threads on here because it isn't about just political party at all, but about beliefs related to utopia and attempting to make that utopia arrive via manipulation of policy and currency by governments.

And you know 8 years of stupid mistakes back in the first decade of this century is pretty long period of time also.

[/QUOTE]

Quote:

There were threads where I trashed Bush for not being very conservative and spending too much.

My criticism of Bush is well documented. Perhaps you could provide some quotes for yours.

And how about something while he was in office if you're looking for them.

And what are you offering as an alternative? Republicans? They got us into this in the first place. MJ's 3rd party that can't win? So what do you offer as an alternative trunptman?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination